Every now and then, there's a story in Fridae about this and that being censored in Singapore, particularly on television. Similar grouses are increasingly being carried on many other blogs and forums, and as digital speech assumes a greater part of information intake for the average guy, these complaints are now harder for media companies to ignore.

TV broadcaster Mediacorp's print magazine 8 Days recently carried an interview with Channel 5's Senior Censorship Manager David Christie in attempt to explain themselves.

In the interview, Christie reminds readers that the government's Media Development Authority (MDA) issues a code of conduct, but "they are broad strokes" and "does not give you specific directions."

So how does Channel 5 interpret those board strokes? He pleads for understanding, saying, "It's really not easy."

"There are some shows like Brothers & Sisters where one of the main cast is gay, and The O.C. where two characters were lesbians in Season 2... How do you keep it running when there are strong gay issues?"

In the end, "we put such series on late nights and put up viewer advisories after making necessary edits."

How slick he was, to slip in "after making necessary edits" right at the end. So yes, as demanded by the government, cuts are made.

He still pleads for mercy from those who would bay for his blood for being the government's henchman. His job is very hard, he says, as "The bulk of Ch 5's shows are from the West where alternative lifestyle is so advanced."

Every second of every film must be reviewed carefully lest something slips through but gets noticed by some homophobe viewer with nothing better to do than to write letters of complaint.

"Even a cooking show can be dangerous," Christie said. "A guy could say something like, 'I'm cooking this for my boyfriend tonight.' We die, you know! What that one remark does is normalise gay lifestyle." And which can lead to a hefty fine by the MDA for breaching their sacred, yet highly anal, code.

Nowhere in his interview does he mention the possibility of Mediacorp taking the MDA to court. Each time Mediacorp, despite censoring their own shows, is hauled up by the Authority for some oversight, infringement or other, they just bend over and pay the fine.

Of course, this is not surprising since Mediacorp, as a 100% government-owned entity, would hardly have a Board of Directors with the balls to mount a court challenge.

In any case, given Singapore's political context, the chance of success is widely believed to be infinitesimally low. Despite the government's claims, the rule of law here is at best imperfect, if not altogether absent in some areas. The government gets extremely prickly about court challenges, and Singapore's legal tradition is quite devoid of examples where anyone has successfully won the right to freedom of speech.

Human rights "fanatics"

Its prickliness was well exhibited recently when the Attorney-General, professor Walter Woon, said in a speech that human rights was "now a religion among some people."

The May 30 edition of Today newspaper quoted him as saying: "You have, like in some religions, the fanatics. And it's all hypocrisy and fanaticism (for these people) to set the views, as the leading spokesmen, of what is acceptable and what's not."

He was probably referring to the government's opponents from the Singapore Democratic Party who have accused the government of many human rights violations, but nonetheless the dismissive way in which he referred to anyone who believed strongly in the importance of human rights would remind all Singaporeans that this government is highly suspicious of any dissent from this front.

More ominously, he appeared to rule out judicial review over any executive decision when he said, "There are many people who think if a decision is made and they don't like it, then this is something the law can correct. There is a line between a political decision and a legal decision."

Just in case any gay person shrugs this off thinking he was only speaking about the Singapore Democratic Party's tactics, it should be worth noting Today's report that Prof Woon also spoke more broadly. He reportedly voiced his disapproval of advocates framing same-sex marriage as an issue of human rights. "Is this a question of human rights?" he asked rhetorically.

Indeed it is curious that out of the blue, the Attorney-General would even mention same-sex marriage as an issue and do so in a way that sought to preemptively invalidate any court challenge. Singapore hasn't yet repealed its colonial-era law against homosexual sex, and nowhere in the republic's public forums has gay marriage found traction as an issue.

The most likely reason why it was top of mind for the Attorney-General must be the California Supreme Court decision on May 15 legalising same-sex marriage in the state. His mention of this subject in his speech betrays the big headache anticipated by the Singapore government.

California is a heavyweight economy. Singapore has broad and deep economic links with it, as well as people flow. Its latest court verdict both signifies and accelerates a trend that goes right across the United States, the superpower that is crucial to Singapore's trade, investment and security concerns.

As expectations and aspirations of gay Americans and even gay Singaporeans keep rising, the gap between what they expect by right and what the Singapore government is prepared to offer (only minimal enforcement of the anti-gay law) widens by the day.

This aspirational gap will undermine Singapore's attractiveness to investors and expatriates, and even to Singapore's own footloose citizens. For a government whose entire legitimacy has been built on economic success, such dark clouds on the horizon can cause sleepless nights.

But as yet, they have no answer, except to threaten anyone who is even contemplating a judicial challenge. They want to stay still even as the world moves on. The guy cooking on television for his boyfriend has to be censored, while elsewhere in the wide world, the boyfriend is fast becoming husband.